How to prove God exists.

[Loudmouth]

We aren't claiming that ignorance of a proven phenomenon's cause is a basis for disbelief. The problem is that the phenomenon of abiogenesis is not in the same category as lightning. We plainly can observe lightning occurring. We cannot and have never seen abiogenesis occurring nor can it even be forced to occur in a lab. So the analogy is flawed.

God of the Gaps fallacy. Just because we don't know where life came from is not evidence that God created life.

 

[Pachomius]

I don't see Hitch coming over, so I will wait further.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't see Hitch coming over, so I will wait further.

In the mean time, perhaps you could answer a question for me.

I define Leprechauns as the cause or rainbows. To prove that Leprechauns exist, I submit the existence of rainbows as proof that Leprechauns exist.

Do you now believe that Leprechauns exist? If not, why did my argument fail to convince you?

 

[Freodin]

I don't see Hitch coming over, so I will wait further.

Perhaps you should first finish your previous lines of conversation before going of into new ones.

You might think that this is indeed the way to "prove God"... but considering that it is you who keep ignoring any question or objection you don't like, and everyone else who is considering your approach very lacking... you might at least consider that it is you who is to blame for your failure, and not those pesky atheists, who simply don't bow to your superiour wisdom.

I have presented you with my argument about "babies as evidence for God". I have explained where your reasoning fails, and I have explained my own reasoning.
If you disagree, have at least the decency to explain the reasons.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The problem with that analogy is that the wind has been observed to move things spatially whereas abiogenesis has never been observed in nature or even in a lab. That fatal differential flaw makes the analogy false.

We've also never observed a non-human intelligent designer, or non-human intelligent design in progress. In fact, we know far more about how abiogenesis probably occurred than we do about anything regarding the mysterious 'intelligent designer'...

 

[Pachomius]

I still don't see Hitch coming over, so I will still wait further.

Dear Hitch, I find your thoughts on God existing or not, in re that you are both agnostic and atheist, to be most inviting from us both to examine each one's way of thinking.

In most particular, what I call the motivational direction of your thinking, namely, you think for a definite purpose which is very interesting for us both to examine, and concur whether you and I are correct on our reciprocal finding on our respective motivational way of thinking.

For example, I find your way to thinking to be motivationally directed to making your position what I might at this point in time call, fuzzy.

And then we can examine why you and I each respectively and reciprocally adopt each one's way of thinking: what is the purpose ultimately of our each one's adoption of our each one's peculiar motivational thinking way.

Now, of course you can tell me also what kind of motivational way you see me to be into: everything I examine in you and how, you too do it on me, okay?

In other words, we will examine each other's way of thinking, in regard to motivation, and why we adopt the motivational goal of our each one's respective motivational thinking way.

And all that in regard to the issue God exists or not.

What do you say?

Dear Hitch, I find your thoughts on God existing or not, in re that you are both agnostic and atheist, to be most inviting from us both to examine each one's way of thinking.

In most particular, what I call the motivational direction of your thinking, namely, you think for a definite purpose which is very interesting for us both to examine, and concur whether you and I are correct on our reciprocal finding on our respective motivational way of thinking.

For example, I find your way to thinking to be motivationally directed to making your position what I might at this point in time call, fuzzy.

And then we can examine why you and I each respectively and reciprocally adopt each one's way of thinking: what is the purpose ultimately of our each one's adoption of our each one's peculiar motivational thinking way.

Now, of course you can tell me also what kind of motivational way you see me to be into: everything I examine in you and how, you too do it on me, okay?

In other words, we will examine each other's way of thinking, in regard to motivation, and why we adopt the motivational goal of our each one's respective motivational thinking way.

And all that in regard to the issue God exists or not.

What do you say?

 

[Gene2memE]

I still don't see Hitch coming over, so I will still wait further.

How about actively engaging some of the other posters as well?

This seems to be a pattern with you, not just on these forums, but elsewhere (The Thinking Atheist, sciforums.com, Online Philosophy Club) - you ignore cogent questions and objections and fixate on details with a single poster..

Having spent an instructive hour or so last night reading your posting history here and elsewhere, I'm forced to draw the conclusion that you're either incapable of learning new philosophical concepts, or are discussing in bad faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

I still don't see Hitch coming over, so I will still wait further.

Are you playing hide and seek with my posts?

 

[Michael]

God of the Gaps fallacy. Just because we don't know where life came from is not evidence that God created life.

Pretty much any suggested "cause" of life would be a "cause of the gaps" argument at this point, including abiogenesis, and panspermia.

 

[Radrook]

God of the Gaps fallacy. Just because we don't know where life came from is not evidence that God created life.

But you aren't claiming that you don't know. You are claiming that the mindless unguided chemicals did it.

 

[Kylie]

In the mean time, perhaps you could answer a question for me.

I define Leprechauns as the cause or rainbows. To prove that Leprechauns exist, I submit the existence of rainbows as proof that Leprechauns exist.

Do you now believe that Leprechauns exist? If not, why did my argument fail to convince you?

I, for one, am convinced!

 

[Kylie]

But you aren't claiming that you don't know. You are claiming that the chemicals did it.

You make it sound like an oxygen molecule and some carbon got together and said, "Hey, I've got this great idea..." and became life.

 

[Michael]

We've also never observed a non-human intelligent designer, or non-human intelligent design in progress. In fact, we know far more about how abiogenesis probably occurred than we do about anything regarding the mysterious 'intelligent designer'...

This is ultimately your personal "statement of faith" in the unseen (in the lab).

The irony of course, is that if the universe is indeed a *living thing* (Panentheism), even abiogenesis does not preclude the existence of an "intelligent designer", one that works "naturally".

 

[HitchSlap]

I still don't see Hitch coming over, so I will still wait further.

You rang?

 

[bhsmte]

Are you playing hide and seek with my posts?

Far too much risk in directly addressing your posts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is ultimately your personal "statement of faith" in the unseen (in the lab).

If, by 'faith', you mean a high degree of confidence, then yes, it was a statement of my high degree of confidence that the lab work of the multiple investigations into abiogenesis is more informative about what may have happened to give rise to life on the early Earth than the empty words 'intelligent designer'.

The irony of course, is that if the universe is indeed a *living thing* (Panentheism), even abiogenesis does not preclude the existence of an "intelligent designer", one that works "naturally".

Being a living thing does not imply intelligence or the ability to design... but hey, if it makes you happy to believe in a universe that is a living thing (and that is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from a universe that is inanimate), good luck to you.

 

[Michael]

If, by 'faith', you mean a high degree of confidence, then yes, it was a statement of my high degree of confidence that the lab work of the multiple investigations into abiogenesis is more informative about what may have happened to give rise to life on the early Earth than the empty words 'intelligent designer'.

Being a living thing does not imply intelligence or the ability to design... but hey, if it makes you happy to believe in a universe that is a living thing (and that is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from a universe that is inanimate), good luck to you.

For whatever it's worth to you, I lean toward abiogenesis myself, but I don't rule out panspermia either. I have no problem whatsoever with life forming 'naturally', nor do I "hold belief" that abiogensis theory somehow precludes 'intelligent design'.

I still recognize that my preference for abiogenesis is a 'cause of the gaps' argument to some degree.

 

[Michael]

Far too much risk in directly addressing your posts.

FYI, that's also why none of them address my astronomy posts, because ultimately they don't have a shred of empirical cause/effect justification to their collective names.

 

[Radrook]

You make it sound like an oxygen molecule and some carbon got together and said, "Hey, I've got this great idea..." and became life.

Not me-YOU FOLKS make it sound that way via attribution of reasoning characteristics to mindless chemicals,.


Intelligent" DNA helps repair cell damage and prevent tumors
https://www.geneticliteracyproject....-dna-helps-repair-cell-damage-prevent-tumors/

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Hitch, thanks, you have come up.

Now, we will ask each other a question each, and see where it will get us.

Here is my question to you, Do you have at all any information at all of a description of God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities?